From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.237.43.66 with SMTP id p60mr3796867qtd.39.1510223377306;
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 02:29:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.161.87 with SMTP id k84mr405174vke.7.1510223377212; Thu,
09 Nov 2017 02:29:37 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!u20no90309qtu.1!news-out.google.com!v14ni692qtc.0!nntp.google.com!z50no323954qtj.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 02:29:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <n8r60dpc9a79sjb6512edngea1mcsbnusi@4ax.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=138.37.90.65; posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.37.90.65
References: <delMB.177230$0z5.116720@fx07.fr7> <071120171248012172%not@aol.com>
<071120171303160684%nospam@nospam.invalid> <5b3ec9c5-8208-4de8-b9d8-be2cf9c05afc@googlegroups.com>
<n8r60dpc9a79sjb6512edngea1mcsbnusi@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <17890d10-e75f-4159-9405-d53388c8f7f2@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:29:37 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1550322610
X-Received-Bytes: 2913
Print Article
Forward Article
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:48:20 UTC, Eric Stevens  wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:47:43 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:03:21 UTC, nospam  wrote:
> >> In article <071120171248012172%not@aol.com>, Scott Schuckert
> >><not@aol.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > > Blurred photo? Instead of deleting it, software could make it sharp again
> >> > > 
> >> > > The end of low res and blurry images could be nigh.
> >> > > 
> >> > >
> >> > > http://home.bt.com/tech-gadgets/photography/artificial-intelligence...
> >> > > enhancenet-sharpens-photos-11364227072791
> >> > 
> >> > Sorry, that's not a "photograph". It's an eye-pleasing reconstruction,
> >> > filling in details that don't actually exist. (³automated texture
> >> > synthesis² that aims to recreate realistic textures in images)
> >> 
> >> *all* photographs have some amount of what you call eye-pleasing
> >> reconstruction and filling in details that don't actually exist.
> >> 
> >> computational photography is the next big thing.
> >
> >A bit like Synthehol, it'll catch on for those with limited appreciation of the real thing.
> 
> From what little I know I expect that in certain respects it will
> exceed the capabilities of the real thing. Time will tell.

whatever that means.


So it'll give detail in an image that never actually existed or that it will leave out niose and
other artifacts ?